>> Funding for "Overheard" with
Evan Smith is provided in part
by MFI Foundation, improving
the quality of life within our
community.
And from the Texas Board
of Legal Specialization,
board certified attorneys
in your community.
Experienced,
respected, and tested.
Also by Hillco Partners, a Texas
Government Affairs consultancy.
And by the Alice Kleberg
Reynolds Foundation.
And viewers like you.
Thank you.
>> I'm Evan Smith.
He spent 32 years representing
Massachusetts' 4th Congressional
District in the U.S.
House retiring in 2013.
His just published memoir
"Frank" is a "New York Times"
bestseller.
He's Barney Frank.
This is "Overheard."
>> Actually, there are not
two sides to every issue.
>> So I guess we
can't fire him now.
>> I guess we
can't fire him now.
The night that I win the Emmy.
>> Being on the Supreme Court
was an improbable dream.
>> It's hard work and
it's controversial.
>> Without information there is
no freedom and it's journalists
who provide that information.
>> Window rolls down
and this guy says, hey,
he goes until 11:00.
[Laughter]
>> Congressman Frank,
nice to meet you.
>> Thank you.
>> Nice to see you and
congratulations on the book.
>> Apprciate it.
Thanks.
>> Could you have imagined all
those years ago in Bayonne or in
Boston as you were in school and
getting your start in politics
that being a member of Congress
might make you more unpopular
than being openly gay?
Hasn't the world changed?
[Laughter]
>> Oh, absolutely.
As I sat down to write
the book I realized,
as I said in my last
years when people polled,
I reassured my husband -- I did
not do this polling myself --
but the poll results were
that my marrying Jim,
as a member of Congress -- still
the only same-sex marriage from
a member of Congress, received
much more public approval than
my chairmanship of the
Financial Services Committee.
[Laughter]
>> Right, they would
much rather, yeah.
>> And people said, well, did you think, even in 2005
when Massachusetts just same sex marriage --
>> Recently, relatively.
>> Ten years ago I would have
thought it would have been very
controversial for me to get
married while I was still in
Congress.
And here it turned
out I was right.
There was a great deal of
controversy about my getting
married.
A lot of my colleagues were very
angry that I didn't invite them.
>> Invite them to
the wedding, yeah.
[Laughter]
>> You know, you have to
draw the line somewhere.
>> And in the world of today or
of two years ago when you got
out of Congress, the fact is
your spouse was accepted as a
Congressional spouse no
different from any other
Congressional spouse.
>> No, we made that rule.
I treat -- you know, I read
a couple of books through my
career, which were manuals.
And one was a biography
of Adam Clayton Powell.
When Adam Clayton Powell came
to Congress from Harlem in 1943,
he was only the third
African-American in this century
post Reconstruction.
>> Right.
>> The other two had been fairly
docile people from Chicago.
So when he got to Congress he
was told as a black man that he
could not use the House barber
shop, the House swimming pool.
The black maitre d' of the House
restaurant told him he was not
allowed to eat there.
>> Right.
>> And Powell said,
the hell I'm not.
And he did it.
>> I came out voluntarily
in 1987 and began dating.
And I read Powell's stuff
so I said here's our rule.
We are not going to do
anything just to make a point,
but we're not going to not do
anything because somebody else
wants to make a point.
So from the beginning
I insist on that.
And Jim's a natural.
He's a guy that people like.
So he became -- in fact, in
some ways, again, more popular.
He says at one point the senior
Republican on the committee I
was dealing with --
and I sometimes get a little cranky --
>> Really?
Hadn't seen that.
>> -- at the end of the day.
He ran into the senior
Republican on the committee I
was chairman and
he was told, oh,
I figured you were
in town today.
And Jim said, well
how did you know that?
He said, well Barney was nice.
>> He was in a good
mood, right, exactly.
How perfect.
[Laughter]
>> What changed in the last ten
years, not just in Congress,
but in this country?
We're now at a place where
acceptance of gays and lesbians
has got to be at a
high point, right?
>> If you had told me even
two years ago that when the
conservative Republican governor
in the conservative cultural
state of Indiana --
>> Yeah.
>> -- was going to get
his head beat in --
>> Right.
>> -- because he wanted to allow
people to discriminate against
us on religious basis, I
would have been unbelieving.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, it's the end of a long
process -- though I think it
worked.
There are very few things in
American history that have
changed so drastically
with the begin point.
Stonewall, 1969.
>> Right.
>> And what I learned then --
I filed the first
gay rights bill in Massachusetts in 1972.
By the way, I was
still then closeted.
I made a decision early on when
I went in the public life --
>> Right.
And you write about that
quite extensively in here.
>> I made two decisions.
First of all, I
would be a coward.
I would not be honest
about being gay.
Secondly, I would
not be a hypocrite.
I would not withhold my support
from efforts to treat gay people
fairly.
>> Right.
>> I have only
contempt for gay men.
Nobody has had to come out.
>> Right.
>> But to be a gay
person or a lesbian,
except the lesbians
didn't do that.
It was only the gay guys.
>> In fact, you seem more
contemptuous -- I don't mean to
digress.
You seem more contemptuous in
this book of hypocrisy than you
do of just straight
ahead homophobia.
>> Oh, absolutely, yeah.
Because it's an
undermining of democracy.
If you are making rules for
other people that you then don't
follow yourself you have
undermined the fundamental core
principle of democracy.
That goes back to John Locke's
Treatise on Civil Government,
which was a manual for
the founding fathers.
What happened was I
was late doing it.
We told the world who we were.
I think the reason we have made
this progress was it's easy to
be prejudice against a
stereotype with no reality.
And essentially what happened
was over time we told people who
we were.
>> Right.
>> And our reality ultimately
undermined the prejudice.
And you saw this, for example,
in the Defense of Marriage Act.
By the time that came along
there were people who don't like
gay people or lesbians, but in
America it wasn't considered
right to just come out and
say I hate those people,
I want them to be unhappy.
>> Right.
>> Originally there was
support for that in America.
The Puritan movement, which H.L.
Mencken defined as the haunting
fear that someone somewhere
might be having a good time.
[Laughter]
>> That was Puritanism.
And, but, what happened was they
didn't want to come right out
and say we don't like one of them so two of them is disgusting.
Instead they said, if they are
allowed to marry it will have
negative social consequences.
>> Right.
>> And that was the
beginning of our winning.
Because once Massachusetts,
thanks to a great Supreme Court
decision in our state, allowed
same-sex marriage and none of
the negative consequences
came forward.
>> Right.
The Apocalypse did not come.
>> So that's basically what
happened was they made all these
accusations about us.
We told people who
we really were.
And then every time we
came forward with an issue,
we allowed gay and lesbian
people to serve openly in the
military.
Most people in the military
have forgotten that.
Go back and I wish one of
the things people would do,
when people make these
predictions that there's going
to be gloom and doom,
hold them to them.
Wait and see what happens --
>> Right.
And remind them what they said.
>> Exactly.
>> Because you talk a lot about
the repeal of
Don't Ask Don't Tell.
The Clinton years is
essentially a study,
and everybody working
this out in realtime.
>> Absolutely.
>> You talk a lot about that
in this book and the reality is
that's barely 20 years ago that
we're talking about and yet the
world has completely changed to
the point that we forgot there
was a time.
>> No question.
Bill Clinton, to his credit,
tried to get rid of the ban on
gays serving in the military.
>> Right.
>> And --
>> The security
clearance question.
>> Yeah, well, Clinton tried to
do that and he was foiled by a
combination of Bob
Dole and Sam Nunn.
>> Sam Nunn, right, yeah.
>> Politics at the time.
But also, as I say in the book,
part of the problem was this,
and I've spent a lot of my time
arguing the substance with my
Conservative opponents, but
arguing procedure with my
Liberal allies.
Because there has been this
tendency for people on the left
to engage in
expressive politics.
Let's demonstrate, let's
march, let's rally.
>> Right.
>> None of which
does you any good.
>> Right.
>> It's mostly
talking to each other.
As I said, one of my
frustrations has been over the
time when the right
gets mad they vote.
When the left gets
mad they march.
Voting beats marching.
>> Voting ends up being --
>> That's why the Tea
Party, to my regret,
had much more impact on public
policy than the Occupy movement.
>> Well, the old cliche
elections have consequences --
>> That's absolutely right.
>> It's a cliche
because it's true.
>> That's a good point.
Most cliches are true.
The problem with the cliche
is not that it's not true,
it's boring.
>> It's boring.
>> You have to be true
to become a cliche.
>> So I'm remembering an account
you give in the book of a very
large march or rally in 1993
when somebody got up and said,
made a comment about wanting to
have sex with Hillary Clinton.
It was actually a --
>> It was a woman, of course.
It was the LGBT.
>> I would like to have sex with
Hillary Clinton, and, in fact,
it was said a little bit
differently than I just said it.
Couldn't say it on
public television.
>> Wouldn't it be great that
there's now a first lady I'd
like to bleep.
>> To blank, right.
And your point was that
kind of conduct --
>> Because you want to
bleep her, not blank her.
>> Bleep her.
Bleep her.
[Laughter]
>> That's sort of a statement
where you tell the story of a
bunch of soldiers who were
emulating kicks like the
Rockettes, your point was --
>> Yeah, these are gay men who
have been kicked out of the
military whom were trying to
say, look, this is ridiculous.
They will be soldiers
like anybody else.
And some organizer -- and the
focus is let's play to each
other's emotions.
Let's forget that we're
trying to persuade others.
So he had them lined up ready
to do a kick routine like the
Rockettes.
And I said no and people
got very angry at me.
>> But your point was use the
time you have in the public eye
to be successful at
politics, not at theater.
>> Yeah.
And some of my
friends say, well,
we got to be like the
African-American movement.
And they say that
and they're right.
We should be.
They misunderstand it.
Martin Luther King
was a very clever,
thoughtful strategist
as well as a --
>> A tactician.
>> -- great moral leader.
>> Right, yeah.
>> And I contrast the march
on Washington in 1964 with its
tight discipline.
It's saying we're going to send
this message to white America.
With the self-indulgence
of our march in '93,
the best example is one of the
great moral heroes of my time or
of any time, John Lewis.
A man who literally
risked his life --
>> Yeah.
>> -- for this principle.
John said, he says
in his own book,
I have talked to him about it.
He was asked to speak at
the march on Washington,
this representative
of young people.
He had to submit something like
five drafts of his speech to
A. Phillip Randolph's
agent, Bayard Rustin.
And each time he was told,
John, that's too radical.
At one point he
said in his speech,
he remembered him telling
this, the people demand.
They said no, no.
That's going to make people
nervous, so make your pick.
So the contrast between the two is what I was hoping
to get our my eyes and the LGBT movement --
>> Well, there's no question
that one of the interesting
takeaways of this book is that
you are as critical of your own
side, in some respects, as
you are of the other side.
>> Procedurally.
>> Procedurally.
>> And the other point
I want to make is this.
One of the things I get really
bothered by are my colleagues
who beat their chest about how
brave they are by standing up to
their opponents.
I tell the right wing this.
I tell the right wing that.
Well, the fact is
that, you know,
if you're barely picking on
people who are never going to be
with you, that's very useful
because it just builds up your
campaign contributions.
>> Right.
>> But Ted Kennedy and Jesse
Helms probably raised
$100 million each for the other.
One would criticize and then the
other one would send out that
criticism and vice versa.
>> Right.
>> The hardest thing in politics
is to stand up to your friends
and tell your friends that
you disagree with them.
>> Right.
>> In my case, as I said, it was
almost always about -- it was
always about procedure
and not substance,
but there's not enough of that.
There's not enough telling the
people close to you when you
think they're wrong.
>> Right.
So we have openly
gay athletes now.
>> Yes.
>> We have openly gay people
in the service, as you say.
We have, I believe, seven openly
gay or lesbian or bisexual --
>> One senator and
six representatives.
>> -- members of Congress.
We have an openly bisexual
governor of Oregon.
>> Yep.
>> And yet have the politics of
this country adequately changed
to your satisfaction?
I'm guessing the answer is no.
>> No, pretty much they have.
But here's the deal.
Every one of the people
you named is a Democrat.
>> Right, there are no
Republicans serving in Congress
who are openly gay.
>> You go back to
1976, which I remember,
and Jimmy Carter and Gerald
Ford were both beginning to be
supportive of equal treatment
for lesbian and gay people.
And then -- and since then there
have been three trend lines in
American politics
about LGBT issues.
The country as a whole has
been getting better at an
increasingly good rate.
The Democrats have been getting
better at an even faster rate
and the Republicans
had been getting worse.
Until recently they were
actually getting worse.
Now the Republicans are in a
situation which troubles them.
It used to be the one
that had the Democrats in.
That is, there was a split
on LGBT issues between their
political base, the people
who vote in primaries,
and the general electorate.
>> Right.
>> And so they are moderating
the ferocity of their attacks on
us --
>> Right.
>> But you still predict
now, not too much,
the Republican platform will be
very critical of LGBT movement
next time and there'll be
no Republican presidential
candidate will be supportive.
So the country, as
a whole, is moving.
What's changed in the
last month was --
>> Yeah.
>> -- Indiana and then Arkansas.
Because a critical block
has moved into this fight,
and it's the business community.
It's very good to
win an issue --
>> Right.
>> -- because you have
morality on your side.
But it helps in America if
the profit motive weighs in.
[Laughter]
>> And essentially what you now
have is the business community
saying to the bigots, will
you please knock it off,
you are interfering
with our ability --
>> To make a buck.
>> -- to ruin the
economy and make money.
And that, I believe --
>> At the end of the day that's
going to trump everything else.
>> Well, you know,
Adlai Stevenson.
I recorded Adlai Stevenson in a
remark that showed his humor and
his political
misjudgment sometimes.
He gave a great speech and
a woman said, oh, governor.
Your speech was marvelous.
You'll have the votes of
all the thinking people.
He said I know, madam,
but I need a majority.
>> I need to win, right.
Yeah.
[Laughter]
>> And so that
didn't help him win.
But I'm glad to have the support
of all the morally driven
people.
But, yeah, to win.
>> Right.
>> And so you have the American
businessmen and it's interesting
what they're saying, and
they're saying this,
do not give us the
right to discriminate.
You are giving me
something I didn't ask for.
Because if a business has the
legal and moral obligation to
serve everybody, no controversy.
But if you say to them, okay,
you can pick and choose,
then once they start
picking and choosing,
somebody is going
to be mad at them.
Either they'll be too kind to
gay people or not kind enough.
>> In either case
they'll be boycotted.
>> Yeah, so the good of the
properly understood and there's
a great legal distinction.
I don't like
metaphors, generally.
But between the
shield and the sword,
a shield is a legal concept that
protects you from other people
intruding on your life.
>> Right.
>> So that I can wear a
yarmulke if I want to.
The Native Americans
can smoke peyote.
Although as far as I'm concerned
anybody who wants to smoke
peyote ought to smoke it.
[Laughter]
>> But we said you cannot
interfere with my religious
freedom.
The sword is when I take that
concept and I interfere with
you.
>> Right.
>> And what happened was we
originally saw the Religious
Freedom acts as a shield against
you being told you couldn't
practice your religion, even if
it didn't bother anybody else.
And then it was converted into
an active way for you to hurt
other people.
And it's going to get
retracted back to that shield,
and that's fine.
>> Yeah.
On gay marriage,
which is another half,
or the other half of this issue
we were visiting before we came
out on stage today that in
some respect there may be some
Republicans who are secretly
hoping that the Supreme Court
weighs in in favor of gay
marriage so that sharp object is
taken off the table.
>> I mean, it's an absolute
analogy in the business
community.
Right now a Republican has the
choice of being for or against
same-sex marriage.
And if he or she is against
it then you have problems in
November.
But if you're for it then you
have problems with your base.
If the Supreme Court says is
it -- and I correct myself.
If the Supreme Court says that
it's a constitutional right
maybe then they can keep it out
of the platform because they can
say, well, that's what
the Supreme Court said.
>> Well, abortion is legal in
this country last time I looked
thanks to the Supreme Court.
And yet I think there's probably
anti-abortion language in the
Republican Party platform too.
>> Well, that's true.
That's a fair
point and, in fact,
people should understand
abortion is now legal by about
four and three quarters to four
and a quarter of the Supreme
Court.
I mean, there were
four who were for it,
four who were against it.
And Justice Kennedy is finding
a lot of ways to go for
restrictions.
Sandra Day O'Connor, who
resigned from the Supreme Court,
timing it so that George W. Bush could replace her
now appears to have resigner's remorse because she's upset --
>> Right.
>> -- that some of the
decisions she made,
both in campaign finance
and affirmative action,
but also on abortion
are being overturned.
But she should have thought of
that when she let him appoint
these guys.
>> Come back to
what I said earlier,
elections have consequences.
>> Absolutely right.
And of 2016, and I say this
to, you know, all the people,
there's no difference.
2016 is going to decide whether
or not the federal government
does anything about
climate change.
>> Yeah.
>> It will decide whether or not
we preserve financial reform,
which obviously I'm invested in.
>> You have a certain amount of
named -- you have naming rights
on that, right.
>> If the Republicans
win, they will repeal it.
They all voted against it.
And abortion will turn around.
On the other hand, I believe
if the Democrats win and the
president gets to
appoint somebody,
her appointee will be
someone who will --
[Laughter]
>> You mean Elizabeth Warren?
[Laughter]
>> No, people have asked me.
I support Elizabeth
Warren in her --
>> Senate race.
>> No, and I also
support her in 2016,
namely her very sensible
declaration that she is not
running for president.
She is an enormous
force for good.
And the day she began to hint at
running for president the media
would then start picking apart
everything she did and she would
lose a lot of that credibility.
And I know some of my
friends on the left think,
well why don't we have this
really nice brawl for president?
And my answer is, well, were
they out of the country during
2012 when the Republicans did
themselves a lot of damage by
throwing pies at each other?
>> But of course you
know, Congressman,
that the opposite argument is
being made by some Democrats.
That if Secretary Clinton gets
a glide path to the nomination,
nominal opposition at best,
by the time she gets into the
general election she'll somehow
be --
this is what they say --
out of practice.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, that she's somehow
going to be worse for not having
had a primary fight.
>> That's a very dumb argument.
I got to say.
[Laughter]
>> I am distancing myself
from dumb arguments.
>> First of all, you know,
historically the notion that
people have had an easy path
to the nomination lose the
nomination, lose the election,
simply isn't empirically true.
Has anybody checked and
said, well, you know,
this one had to fight for it,
that one had to fight for it?
Somebody it didn't help was
Mitt Romney the last time.
George W. Bush had a fairly easy path --
>> No, he had John McCain beat
him in New Hampshire, right?
I mean --
>> Yeah, but it was
over fairly quickly.
But the other point is this.
I don't mean you, but there was
a certain presumption for people
who have never run for
political office --
>> Right.
>> -- telling a woman who twice
worked with her husband to run
for president, twice was elected
to the United States Senate in
New York, and then ran a very
tough campaign for president
that she doesn't know how to
campaign or that she's going to
forget it.
Well this is not something
you forget easily.
No, I don't think they
know more than she.
And the other point is this: Yes, it would be nice if you
had a debate purely on the merits --
>> Right.
>> -- that did not get angry.
Not in this country,
not with this media.
There is no way that you would
have a primary without people
getting negative.
You can't control the
people on your own side.
>> Right.
>> The media likes
to make things angry.
>> Well, we're fight
promoters, not journalists.
>> That's exactly right.
>> I fully acknowledge
that, yeah.
>> And the fact also is that in
the Democratic side this time
there was a fairly
broad consensus.
Now there was some question
on the foreign policy area.
>> Well, in fact, you're a
Liberal and unabashedly a
Liberal.
There are people who think
that she's not liberal enough.
So people on your side --
>> But, no, here's the deal.
>> Financial reform.
Too close to Wall Street.
>> Yeah.
She lives physically too
close to Wall Street.
From that standpoint --
>> This is a Mamaroneck problem?
What is that?
>> Well, she's a New York State
senator and very few people
totally go to war with
their home state entity,
but the point is that when
Barack Obama signed a bill that
included a weakening
amendment on financial reform,
Hillary Clinton Tweeted that
we should not, in any way,
do that again and we
should not erode it.
The fact is that they say that
but it's based on nothing.
And it's true that she took
contributions from the big
financial people.
By the way, so did
Barack Obama in 2008.
>> He did.
>> Now by 2012 they weren't
giving it -- and they would give
to me too.
I was chairman of committee,
they gritted their teeth and
they hated it.
I had one guy, I don't
want to embarrass him,
but he's the head of
mutual fund in Boston.
So when they were trying
to knock me off in 2010,
they were mad over the
financial reform bill.
He gave me $10,000.
Then I saw that he gave
my opponent $10,000.
So I said to him,
well, you know,
you're head of a mutual fund,
you're a financial expert.
I'm going to be your
financial adviser.
Instead of giving me
$10,000 and him $10,000,
don't give any of us anything.
>> Either one.
>> You'll have the same
effect and save $20,000.
[Laughter]
>> But I defy anyone to show
me any issue on which Hillary
Clinton was weak.
It is true she supported
a bankruptcy bill.
>> Right.
>> I voted against it, so
did a lot of other Democrats.
And, by the way, the main
advocates of the bankruptcy
bill, people forget this.
J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs didn't care about that.
The bankruptcy bill was lobbied
through by the community bankers
and the credit unions, which
is why it was so hard to defeat
because they have
a lot of clout.
But if you look at the issues,
well let me just quote Paul
Krugman, who was
the best liberal --
>> No one's idea
of a conservative.
>> And a great commentator.
Go back and read his columns in
2008 and he documented that she
was the Barack Obama's left --
>> Left.
>> -- on domestic policy.
I do have some questions
about her on foreign policy.
>> Right.
>> Also President Obama.
I think the time has come.
I like the president's initial
notion to get out of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
He's getting pressure
to go back in.
There's nothing we can do there.
The notion that we
can, by military force,
make coherent society --
>> Yeah.
>> -- for the people who are
determined to hate each other.
>> And you think her position on
those issues is different than
his?
>> No, it's the same as his and
I want them both to pull back.
>> And that's your concern.
Wasn't she also late to
the party on gay marriage?
>> In a way, Obama was.
>> Yeah, he's not running
again, last I looked.
He's not running.
>> No, but he's the one
that they sort of hold up.
She came to same-sex
marriage -- no,
actually she was before
him as a New York senator.
In fact, she came to same-sex
marriage before her husband.
>> Right.
>> And, by the way,
on same-sex marriage,
she voted against --
and here's the deal.
When it came to voting
on same-sex marriage,
she was not in the senate when
the vote came on the Defense of
Marriage Act.
But after Massachusetts had
a constitutional amendment to
allow marriage, George W. Bush with Karl Rove's urging,
trying to get Congress to adopt an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution that would not only have banned gay marriage
going forward, but would have
retroactively abolished the
marriages that had
happened in Massachusetts,
because you can do a
Constitutional amendment.
And she voted against that.
>> She was opposed to that.
>> A majority of the Senate, a
majority of the House voted for
it but they needed two-thirds.
And so she consistently,
when it became an issue,
has voted the critical
one, to allow it.
Because it goes back
to what I said before.
I knew that once we got
same-sex marriage anywhere,
established a beachhead, we
were going to win that argument
because we had the reality done.
But she was a consistent
supporter to protect our right
to do that.
>> All right, so we
have two minutes left.
So she's the nominee.
You're comfortable with that.
Who is likely to be the
Republican nominee and who would
you like to see your
party run against?
>> Oh, Ted Cruz.
[Laughter]
>> No question about that?
[Applause]
>> I don't think you took
half a second to answer that.
>> No, I mean, I think I'm
a pretty virtuous guy but I
probably have not lived a good
enough life for nature to award
me, or God or whatever,
with Ted Cruz.
>> With Ted Cruz.
Who do you think
will be the nominee?
>> Well, I worry about
Scott Walker, you know,
the "New York Times." And I
was a little worried about the
trivialization of journalism.
The "New York Times" had a front
page story about Scott Walker's
being allergic to dogs and
would that be an issue.
And I said, no, why don't you
write an article about the fact
that he's allergic
to labor unions --
>> Unions, right.
>> -- and what they
mean for working people.
>> So Walker could be dangerous.
He doesn't have the negatives,
I think, that Jeb Bush has.
>> He's also run successfully
in a blue state and survived a
recall --
>> Right, although he won
that blue state twice in
non-presidential years --
>> He did.
>> -- which were very
good Republican years.
But I'm hoping is, frankly one
of the problems I write about
this in the book is that we've
had is with white working-class
men who were falling
away from the Democrats,
I think because they are
frustrated economically.
I would hope that having the
meany union buster in America
who's warred on people who work
for a living and boasts about
how he reduced the pay of
janitors and now supported a
right to work law which
undercuts the teamsters and the
construction workers.
>> Right.
>> That he would be -- we could
get a better response from white
working-class people than
we've gotten in a while.
>> So we're about
to be out of time.
You don't miss being in
this old job of yours?
>> Oh, I'm very glad to have
done it but I just wore out
emotionally.
>> It's done.
>> I got to the point I
realized -- the phone rang and I
flinched.
>> Is that right?
Well, the book is great.
It's a reminder of
all that you did.
I hope you enjoy your
life post Congress.
Thanks so much for coming by.
Congressman Barney Frank.
[Applause]
We'd love to have you
join us in the studio.
Visit our website at
klru.org/overheard to find
invitations to interviews, Q&As
with our audience and guests,
and an archive of past episodes.
>> I never pretended
to be religious.
When I took the, what they call
the oath of office every two
years, I didn't take it as an oath.
I said I affirm.
But in the House of
Representatives all of us do it
together so who knew
what I was saying?
>> Funding for "Overheard" with
Evan Smith is provided in part
by MFI Foundation, improving
the quality of life within our
community.
And from the Texas Board
of Legal Specialization,
board certified attorneys
in your community.
Experienced,
respected, and tested.
Also by Hillco Partners, Texas
Government Affairs consultancy
and its global healthcare
consulting business unit,
Hillco Health.
And by the Alice Kleberg
Reynolds Foundation.
And viewers like you.
Thank you.